On A Voice for Men, rape jokes about men are hilarious, so long as they're about some dude you don't like.

How seriously does Paul Elam, head cheese of A Voice for Men, take the issue of rape? So seriously that he has proudly declared that

Should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true.

It’s in bold in the original, too. Evidently, the best way to fight against false accusations is to let the guilty free.

Recently, Elam has started a whole campaign, complete with its own little acronym and everything, to encourage others to follow his lead. In one recent post, he even seems to be suggesting (in a wink-wink-nod-nod sort of way) that his followers should lie about their beliefs in order to get on juries, just so they can Fuck Their Shit Up and, as he put it in a one word comment advertising the post on Reddit, “nullify.”

Now, in his original post on rape, it seemed to be pretty clear that his ire was aroused specifically by the specter of evil women lying about being raped by men. As he put it, justifying his decision to acquit the guilty,

Women lie about being raped, judicial politicians make careers off of putting away sexual offenders, and a brainwashed public cheers it all on. That so many of the men caught up in this are innocent doesn’t stop the grinding wheels of all this injustice for even a moment.

But before we conclude that Elam’s stance on rape is simply misogynist, I point you to a new post that suggests that he takes the rape of men just as (not) seriously as he takes the rape of women – to the point that he thinks it’s hilarious to make jokes about raping men. Announcing a radio show devoted to further discussion of his surreal atheist post from earlier this week, he says this about one famously feminist atheist activist who is also a dude:

Hopefully, before we are done [with the radio show], MRA’s of differing views will find more common ground, and PZ Myers will be limping to the drug store for some KY Jelly.

I guess on AVfM, making a rape joke about about a man is just peachy, so long as the man in question is someone you don’t like.

Comments

I knew it, Bagelsan! That’s why i took the blue bill and started memorizing feminist dogma, my facial hair doesn’t even rise to the level of “beard”, more like “the mange” – mostly lip and chin, growing in all super slow on the sides, faster on one than the other. It would take me a decade to make a chinstrap. My “beard” basically gives up on the underside of my face completely. My only hope is undermining all men like the Crabpeople in Southpark.

When I’m dictator of the everything, people can have beard (nothing wrong with them on an aesthetic pov), expect for people who kiss me or, you know… stuff that involve both my body and their mouth.
Obviously, they can grow hair after of before, that, just not during.

It itches!

Since I’m currently drowning in my own misandry, I’d like to proudly say that, since the beginning of the week, I’ve killed three men. With two bananas.
(It it makes it better, my next target is female)

Ray Sawyer, the goofy one in guilty-pleasure Southern-rock group Dr Hook has sported a pretty impressive neckbeard, though I feel the moustache loses him neckbeard points. Not that the eyepatch doesn’t make it up a few times over.

@debbaasseerr
Yeah, it’s all too close. I can see the castration of male boys just around the corner.

Seriously, how is some ignoramus calling us a mangina any different than a jock calling us a faggot in high school? MRAs are just another version of jockstrap in high school, stupid, callous, and brutal.

That’s why i took the blue bill and started memorizing feminist dogma, my facial hair doesn’t even rise to the level of “beard”, more like “the mange” – mostly lip and chin, growing in all super slow on the sides, faster on one than the other.

You could also just pretend to be an adorable small animal with mange — they’ll be treated with the same dignity as our captive/pet manginas (treats and walkies everyday) but there’s less to memorize. 😀

I’m not quite sure what the point of the artilcle is (I guess trying to find a point to anything Elam writes is rather futile) but I have a creeping sense that the aim is to imply, “See? These women experienced some pleasure during their rapes, therefore rape is not a big deal.”

crumb, actually that Elam article was a really bizarre and muddled attempt at satire — the studies he cites were all made up, then at the end he says: all these studies were made up, therefore feminists are liars. (Presumably because he thinks they make up studies, though he provides no evidence of this, of course.) It’s sort of embarrassing that I’m actually able to understand his bizarre, er, logic here.

And we’re, what, surprised by this? I’ve never believed the vast majority of them give a red fuck about rape of men for one second; their entire worldview depends on believing on the “real men” crap like “men don’t get raped, and if they do it’s laughable and contemptible.” What else would you expect from people who think “mangina” is a witty?

That is probably the stupidest article I’ve ever read – and I read AVfM on a daily basis!!

It… just… fails…

But check out this horrific quote from one of the creepsters:

“My daughter asked me about sex before she had it (which was a surprise) my suggestion to her was before you let someone else play with your body, play with it yourself and find out how it works. I also suggested to her that from time to time she should consider throwing her partner on the floor and have her way.”

That article is extraordinarily stupid. While all the commentors are patting themselves on the back for a article well done, they fail to consider this; if Elam hadn’t put the disclaimer about everything being made up, then every single one of them would have been none the wiser. Every single one would be saying the exact same thing they are now, but without the “har har, feminists are gonna be fooled unlike us. Feminists are so dumb, har har.”

Now that’s interesting information re beards and the neck area. Since I’ve always dated men with very little body hair, and none of the men in my family are hairy, I always assumed that the neck was the last place there men’s facial-ish hair grew in, and thus “neckbeard” was a way to call someone super extra hairy and too “lazy” or non-conforming to groom to societally specified standards. Never thought it had anything to do with gender norms, though, more to do with grooming norms in a more general “iron your clothes and always wear clean underpants” sort of sense.

My preference for men who aren’t very hairy? Obvious misandry. But if I preferred super hairy men, that would also be misandry, since some men can’t grow beards at all. Basically any time women have the sheer unmitigated gall to have preferences, that’s misandry, and men who collude with this by going “hey she likes men like me, maybe we should go on a date!” are mangina traitors.

I don’t understand this guy, and I’m starting to think that’s for the better.

Like, has he cottoned on to us, and knows we detest rape jokes aimed at women, and is now under the illusion that we’d be okay with jokes about rape committed against a man? (I’m not sure I used the best wording there; feel free to correct me.)

@Morgan:
He’s purposely trolling under the idea that, “Hey, even bad publicity is free publicity.” There’s a column on the side of his site labeled “Mainstream Media Mentions of AVFM”. One is a NYT article calling the site “misogynistic”. Another is from a CBS-affiliate article that was equally unflattering of one of Elam’s articles. The other two are fairly neutral and only mention the site in passing. Somehow, this is enough to convince Elam that people take him seriously. It’s best to just laugh at him because as far as I can tell, anger directed at him is what he wants.

I always assumed that the neck was the last place there men’s facial-ish hair grew in, and thus “neckbeard” was a way to call someone super extra hairy and too “lazy” or non-conforming to groom to societally specified standards. Never thought it had anything to do with gender norms, though, more to do with grooming norms in a more general “iron your clothes and always wear clean underpants” sort of sense.

Yeah, there’s a bit of that too. I don’t think the massive beards grown by the super-extra-hairy which happen to extend onto the neck count as “neckbeards”, though – they are the more “virile” lumberjack or woodsman beards. I’m pretty sure the image it’s meant to convey combines extreme slobbiness with a lack of traditional masculine traits/too many teenagery traits.

Something like this:

I should certainly have emphasised the slob angle more though; I just thought I’d written too much about beard-growing-in-patterns and hegemonic masculinity already .

The reason why that statement is so inflammatory is so it gets a variety of trackbacks, links and attention. This website has been useful in that regard.

I think Mr. Futrelle does understand what I am about to explain, it’s just much easier to create useful polarization by jumping on such comments —in any case, for those who actually care:

Below the inflammatory statement that is cited in this article (on the AVfM website) is the explanation that if one cannot trust the police to do their jobs, or prosecutors, or judges, any guilty vote, any option but taking a not guilty stand based on jury nullification is immoral.

It is immoral because by giving your guilty vote one is sanctioning an unjust system. One is implying that such a system is objective and proper and is an arbiter of justice — when in fact it is just as equally the arbitrer of injustice in the case of rape trials.

A “not guilty vote” is not made to defend real rapists, who under a real system of justice would be properly punished, it is an admittance that under the current system we cannot consistently trust the results of trials.

Consider a lateral example. if I could show that close to half of “criminals” put to death were innocent — what would be the right choice to make as a jury member in a murder trial? A guilty vote of any kind sanctions a corrupt system. And the refusal to participate just ensures someone else will take your spot as likely a useful idiot for the prosecution.

If a real rapist goes free as a result of the jury nullification/not guilty vote, that is not the moral responsibility of the juror. It is the responsibility of those who instituted and maintained an irrational system, prosecutors, judges, right down to the political voter, including you, Mr. Futrelle.The blame for the terrible and twisted outcome of such cases would lie with those people, and the state, not with those who advocate a change in the system that would see a proper distinction enforced between the innocent and the guilty.

Without this consistent distinction, courts pursue a mockery of itself — acting out a play, putting on a tragic black comedy, justified by perceived social justice — instead dispensing actual justice.

Rad: Your argument would make sense if you could support the claim that half those convicted of rape were not guilty.

You can’t even show that half of those guilty of rape are actually tried.

It most certainly is the moral responsibility of any juror who votes to acquit someone that person believes to be guilty of an offense they consider a moral wrong, or a crime.

You admit that rape is such a crime “A “not guilty vote” is not made to defend real rapists, who under a real system of justice would be properly punished….” Since you admit rape to be crime which is deserving of a punishment you are arguing to absolve them from their crimes, with a verdict of not guilty.

And that means you are advocating for a movement to continue to absolve such offenses. You don’t want to reform the ways in which rape is prosecuted; you want to immunise rapists, and make rape a non-crime.

It is immoral because by giving your guilty vote one is sanctioning an unjust system. One is implying that such a system is objective and proper and is an arbiter of justice — when in fact it is just as equally the arbitrer of injustice in the case of rape trials.

I expect this kind of sophisticated logic from my 6-year-old nephew. If the system isn’t completely flawless, I’m not going to play in it.

Rather than try to do your part to make the system fair and function properly, you would deliberately muddle the works and free GUILTY CRIMINALS in some kind of irrational protest.

4 out of 5 dentists agree that chewing gum when brushing isn’t an option reduces cavities. Until ALL dentists unanimously agree, you’re going to let your teeth rot in protest.

Unimaginative- You do understand that a person’s life can be shattered just from the mere allegation of rape?

In the 60’s there was the spectacle of rape trials where a woman’s reputation was tarnished for coming forward to report real injustices done to her. Female victims back then must have felt especially alone, when no matter the verdict, they were in a lose-lose situation, whether the man was found guilty or innocent she was told she must have deserved it, or called a whore. Rightly so this attitude was challenged and for the most part eradicated from the culture.

But in its stead was placed a perspective just as perverse, now throttling men instead of women.

Even if a modern man is proven to to be innocent, the spectre of a false rape allegation will follow him for the rest of his life. In modern culture this influences how he is perceived, what opportunities he can receive, what kinds of employment he will be discredited from. Sure, he is not in prison, but he is being punished, as all accused men will be, even if they never did anything wrong –meanwhile the name of the accuser is often hidden from public view, protected by prosecutors and a twisted vision of integrity held by professional journalists.

This cultural force is just as unacceptable as it was when the status quo told women they must have deserved to be raped. Please keep in mind that men choose often choose to suffer in silence whereas women are less likely to, because the men believe that their own value is in being masculine, i.e., in having traits that have utility for women. Weakness or victimhood (real or imagined) are not traits that a heterosexual man is allowed to display.

Now, that most women choose not to exercise this power of life-crushing allegations they have over men, doesn’t change that there is the capacity to exercise it and that the culture at large is willing to be their happy co-conspirators, essentially telling the man that he is guilty by reason of being a man, in the same way they once told women that they were to blame — for reason of being a woman.

Let’s get real here: there are more male victims of rape than female victims of rape when we count the imprisoned, at least in North America.

Secondly, the current FBI redefinition of rape states that forced envelopment is not rape but forced penetration is rape. So a woman actually raping a man doesn’t qualify as rape anymore, it falls into some other category. In this way, rape statistics are corrupted and the narrative surrounding rape continues to be shaped by those with a particular agenda that does not reflect reality. This change in stat gathering, done at the behest of pressure groups, eventually have its effect on the law itself.

Of course I am willing to make room for human fallibility. Individuals make mistakes, even with no dishonesty on their part. This is simply part of being human. However, where you see a manifestation of human fallibility, I see the providence of ideology and systemic corruption. The Innocence Project documents men who were imprisoned for rape, later freed after being proven innocent. This is a small but growing group of 205 men, with cases spanning 30 years. How many man on woman rape trials are there a year in which the man is found guilty? Well, TIP is a small project, with limited resources. With more resources would come new revelations.

Feminists like to tout the 2% false allegations line, MRA’s like to push 40%+ (4 in 5 would mean a 20% false conviction rate, you understand right? This is not toothpaste, and the greater the consequences, the greater the vigilance we require) — I think it is incredibly difficult to find the exact number. But what should be alarming is not whatever percentage the false accusation (and false imprisonment) rate turns out to be, it’s rather a culture that so casually dismisses the suffering of men, and then uses them to frame their political-ideological purposes.

If you really want to see how easy it is for a man to be falsely accused and have almost no one believe him, look no further than last months 20/20 episode about the Oakland man accused of sexually abusing his autistic daughter. A few simple non-biased questions would have resolved that whole thing, but we can’t let the facts get in the way when there’s an ideological vision that demands satisfaction. Please check it out, I am sure you can find it on YT. It’s called “From Miracle To Nightmare”. The end result of the trial was altered by mere luck, if not for that, the man would still be one of the wrongly imprisoned today.

Unimaginative- You do understand that a person’s life can be shattered just from the mere allegation of rape?

Technically possible, if extraordinarily unlikely. Par for the course is that the worst thing that happens as a result of a rape trial is the time you spend in jail (Because jail, while not as much concentrated shit, is still bad) during the trial. Worse *can* happen, but it’s not really very likely. Case in point, nobody remembers the name of anybody involved in the Duke case but the prostitute and the prosecutor.

Even if a modern man is proven to to be innocent, the spectre of a false rape allegation will follow him for the rest of his life. In modern culture this influences how he is perceived, what opportunities he can receive, what kinds of employment he will be discredited from.

evidence plox. Nobody gives a shit about rape that isn’t stranger rape with a weapon, child rape, or racially charged. The formermost is only grudgingly given. Yet somehow, being acquitted from rape leaves you in an irrecoverable place? What the hell is this shit?

doesn’t change that there is the capacity to exercise it and that the culture at large is willing to be their happy co-conspirators

Dude, do you have any idea how ridiculously hard it is to bring a case to trial? The police won’t believe you without videotape or unless you are a white woman who was raped by a black or brown man. The trial is almost 100% about destroying your character. And the culture is *happy to help* rape survivors bring rapists to justice? What the hell does a hostile culture look like in your book?

–meanwhile the name of the accuser is often hidden from public view, protected by prosecutors and a twisted vision of integrity held by professional journalists.

This is how I know you know shit about rape cases, really. This is only in a few jurisdictions, and without it, it’s even harder to get survivors to report.

Secondly, the current FBI redefinition of rape states that forced envelopment is not rape but forced penetration is rape.

Uh, what you’re talking about is still rape by the FBI definition. Reread it; it doesn’t specify that it’s against the consent of the vagina-holder. But the FBI as a rule does not cover rape cases at all, because rape is not a problem that generally falls under interstate crime.

So a woman actually raping a man doesn’t qualify as rape anymore, it falls into some other category

Unless he’s penetrated, which can still happen when a woman rapes a man, and see above.

In this way, rape statistics are corrupted and the narrative surrounding rape continues to be shaped by those with a particular agenda that does not reflect reality.

Not really. Those statistics come from self-reporting, generally, or are gathered by the UCR; neither falls under FBI definition problems, even if there were any.

Let’s get real here: there are more male victims of rape than female victims of rape when we count the imprisoned, at least in North America.

This is a blatant falsehood. Roughly a fifth of men in prison are raped; cultural myths to the contrary, not every single male or female in prison suffers rape. It’s a very real and prevalent problem, but it isn’t so common that we can claim the entire penal system to be rape survivors.

And further, even if *Every single male in prison* were raped, that would *still* be fewer than the number of women in prison, because while the US has far too many prisoners, they’re still less than 3 percent of the population (even counting former prisoners), whereas 1/6th of all women are survivors.

it’s rather a culture that so casually dismisses the suffering of men, and then uses them to frame their political-ideological purposes.

Christ, you already have fucking primacy in everything and you want even more concern? Feminists have trouble getting shit done under a constant stream of WHAT ABOUT TEH MENZ and you think this culture fucking ignores your suffering?

If you really want to see how easy it is for a man to be falsely accused and have almost no one believe him, look no further than last months 20/20 episode about the Oakland man accused of sexually abusing his autistic daughter.

Child rape is actually cared about, facilitated communication is terrible. You are so blinkered you can’t even look at normal court and police procedure, aren’t you?

Rad: Before I add to Rutee’s points against your most recent screed of propaganda, care to address the moral points above.

1: You agree rape is a serious crime.
2: You are willing to let rapists go free, even when you know they are guilty.

Now, to the farrago of nonsense and lies in your most recent attempt to justify the evil you advocate.

In the 60′s there was the spectacle of rape trials where a woman’s reputation was tarnished for coming forward to report real injustices done to her.

As if that never happens now. There is never a defense attorney who brings the victims past personal history into question. Never one who says, “she was drinking and then chose to go to his room. What do you think she really wanted.?” No one is ever going to imply she went up to have sex with him, with the express purpose of saying she was raped so she could make a lot of money.

Nope, never happens.

Even if a modern man is proven to to be innocent, the spectre of a false rape allegation will follow him for the rest of his life

More nonsense. Quick, name the young men from the Foothill College baseball team who were accused of raping a 16 year old? The one’s against whom no case was brought, even though there were people, other than the victim, who saw what was happening, who testified that it was a rape.

Hell, I’ll bet you’d never even heard of it, until I mentioned it.

Let’s get real here: there are more male victims of rape than female victims of rape when we count the imprisoned, at least in North America.

What has what to do with knowing someone is a rapist and choosing, as a juror, to make sure he gets away with it? Because that’s what we are talking about. It what your entire argument is built around, you think no one, even those obviously guilty of a crime you condemn* should be punished

The Innocence Project documents men who were imprisoned for rape, later freed after being proven innocent.

Yep. And those are awful. But the one thing (false convictions) doesn’t lead, irreduceably to the other. That some people are going to be falsely convicted is sadly true, heartbreakingly true.

What other babies would you throw out with this bathwater? There are more people falsely convicted of murder… what say we just nullify that law too? What about pedophilia? The McMartin Case was bad enough, but at least they were acquitted. There were other cases in that bout of hysteria where the accused were convicted, and in which the DA’s offices are defending the convictions, and more than 20 years later those people are still in prison.

We ought to get rid of laws against pedophilia too, right?

Because what you keep glossing is that you are arguing for letting people whom you know to be guilty be allowed to rape people without consequence.

That’s what nullification is all about. It’s about saying the underlying law is unjust. If someone were to be presented to me with a charge of, “using the white bathroom”, or, engaging in sodomy”, I’d refuse to convict. I think that sort of law is morally repugnant; because the underlying behavior being criminalised hurts no one. The law itself is unjust.

You don’t think that. You’ve said rapists deserve to be punished, but only if things were different.

So what changes would you make to the system? What remedies would make you willing to convict a rapist?

*I am going to give you the benefit of believing you when you say rapists should be punished. This doesn’t mean I think your definition of rape is actually a good one. I suspect a great deal of what I would term rape, you would call, “a misunderstanding”.

I was once… ONCE accused of something I did not do (not judicial). I was 11 years old at the time. Went to a local store after school with my classmates. They decided to steal and got caught.

The store had CCTV. Store manager checked the footage and told me I could go home. In the meantime, a fellow classmate witnessed the entire thing and went ahead to my house and told my parents. My ‘Dad’ beat me to a pulp when I got home and my Mom and brothers watched. I pleaded my innocence. I begged. I was bleeding. Told them to call the store. Nothing. Everyone believed I was guilty. I think that was the day I gave up on love. I had to suffer the consequences. I am still dealing with it even though I was proved innocent. That day changed me and it cannot be undone. I wouldn’t wish this on my worst enemy. A few days later I went back to the store and asked the manager to call home. To date, I am yet to receive even a hint of an apology.

I am not agreeing with ‘all rapists are not guilty’. I am however encouraging thorough beyond a reasonable doubt investigations and verdicts.

The world is a peculiar place. I am a rape survivor and I laid a charge with the police. The investigating officer (a woman) called me a month later and told me that they cannot proceed with the case because I relocated after it happened… it happened six hours away from where I moved to. Oddly enough my rapist lived in the same city. Go figure. Gotta love justice.

Donate to the Mammoth!

We Hunted the Mammoth is an ad-free, reader-supported publication written and published by longtime journalist David Futrelle, who has been tracking, dissecting, and mocking the growing misogynistic backlash since 2010, exposing the hateful ideologies of Men’s Rights Activists, incels, alt-rightists and many others.

We depend on support from people like you. Please consider a donation or a monthly pledge by clicking below! there's no need for a PayPal account.

Send comments, questions, and tips for stories to me at dfutrelle@gmail.com, or by clicking here